Bible translations: I'm thoroughly confused...!

[Lindsey Grant]

Okay, so in my Bible class this semester, we're studying the New Testament and its origins and such. The people who provide this curriculum are Baptists, and normally we have to get into deep theological discussions at our house on the differences in what they teach (or rather, cram down your throat) and what Nazarenes believe.

This week's discussion has been a doosy.

Okay, so these people believe that the only "legitimate" versions of the Bible are the King James version and the New King James Version. I, uhm, don't...haha. so this morning while reading my text book and their pathetic excuses for this belief (thinking it was all bologna), they actually pulled out one very puzzling enigma that I'd like your opinion on.

Apparently, in 2 out of 4 versions of the Bible I pulled up online, there is a verse omitted in Acts 8:36-38 (they leave out verse 37) that is not omitted in the King James and New King James version.

KJV:
"36And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?

37And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

38And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him."

NIV [one of my personal favorites]:
"36As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, "Look, here is water. Why shouldn't I be baptized?"[a] 38And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him.

Footnotes:

Acts 8:36 Some late manuscripts baptized?" 37 Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." The eunuch answered, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."

NLT[my favorite]:
"36 As they rode along, they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “Look! There’s some water! Why can’t I be baptized?”[a] 38 He ordered the carriage to stop, and they went down into the water, and Philip baptized him.

Footnotes:

Acts 8:36 Some manuscripts add verse 37, “You can,” Philip answered, “if you believe with all your heart.” And the eunuch replied, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”

and ASV:
"36 And as they went on the way, they came unto a certain water; and the eunuch saith, Behold, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?

37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him."

So now I'm thoroughly confused. See, for me, as long as my NLT Bible has the footnote I don't really care, because I usually check footnotes anyway. But I don't understand why it has been omitted in the first place. Does anyone know why this is?

Thanks :-)

[Ryan Scott]

I'm by far not the most qualified person to answer this and I'm not exactly sure what your question is. Even documents in the original languages are copies of copies far removed from originals. Translators generally compare those which are available and have to make decisions on which are most trustworthy for translation.

As far as I know, there are surprisingly few digressions on points of major importance, but most translators often note (as you illustrated above) when there are differences of note.

I don't see exactly how the information given changes the meaning of the passage, other than to say, verse 37 may not have originally been part of the text.

[Billy Cox]

Okay, so these people believe that the only "legitimate" versions of the Bible are the King James version and the New King James Version.

So the KJV-only people are finally accepting the New King James? Man, they're slippin' big time. :basic05


Apparently, in 2 out of 4 versions of the Bible I pulled up online, there is a verse omitted in Acts 8:36-38 (they leave out verse 37) that is not omitted in the King James and New King James version.

...

So now I'm thoroughly confused. See, for me, as long as my NLT Bible has the footnote I don't really care, because I usually check footnotes anyway. But I don't understand why it has been omitted in the first place. Does anyone know why this is?


The King James Bible was first published nearly 400 years ago. As you may be able to imagine, the practice of translating ancient texts has been improving since then and formerly undiscovered manuscripts have surfaced, some of which are *older* and/or more reliable than those available to the KJV translators.

My educated guess is that when translators looked at older manuscripts of the book of Acts, verse 37 was not there; leading them to believe that the verse was added later on - and not by the original author. :)

[Tami Martin]

Baptists...

...differences in what they teach (or rather, cram down your throat) and what Nazarenes believe.

...

...these people believe ...

...their pathetic excuses for this belief (thinking it was all bologna)...

...

...

Does the translation you DO use not include language about loving our brothers and sisters in Christ?

[Lindsey Grant]

Does the translation you DO use not include language about loving our brothers and sisters in Christ?


I'm sorry? How does stating their beliefs and stating my differences indicate I don't love them? I happen to love these teachers more than anyone could possibly imagine.
"these people." how else do I refer to them? I have no problems with them as people, I just disagree with their teachings.

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

In a letter I recieved, from Ralph Earl many years ago, he explained to me some things that were not really in the original scriptures of the KJV. He helped translate the NIV from the original scriptures, and a few things were added by scribes, to the KJV, when it was translated, and so they are not in some versions of the Bible. He told me that he taught Greek fifty years, I think. I have not read the letter in a while. We have it in a file cabinet at home, in W. Tn. I grew up loving the KJV, but enjoy other versions, also.

[Tami Martin]

I'm sorry? How does stating their beliefs and stating my differences indicate I don't love them? I happen to love these teachers more than anyone could possibly imagine.
"these people." how else do I refer to them? I have no problems with them as people, I just disagree with their teachings.

It's been pointed out to me that you are pretty young, so I'll keep that in mind as I'm responding here.

The language you used is inflammatory. It indicates a lack of respect for people who don't have your point of view. It does NOT indicate love and respect.

Baptists don't "cram their beliefs down people's throats" any more than Nazarenes do at Nazarene colleges and universities.

Calling their rationalization for their particular beliefs "pathetic" does not indicate respect for those views.

It is often very difficult to take ones own emotions out of the picture when disagreeing with someone over deeply held beliefs, but it is worth the effort.

[John Kennedy]

Calling attention to someone's age in discussing their point of view is, IMO, somewhat patronizing.

[Lindsey Grant]

It's been pointed out to me that you are pretty young, so I'll keep that in mind as I'm responding here.

The language you used is inflammatory. It indicates a lack of respect for people who don't have your point of view. It does NOT indicate love and respect.

Baptists don't "cram their beliefs down people's throats" any more than Nazarenes do at Nazarene colleges and universities.

Calling their rationalization for their particular beliefs "pathetic" does not indicate respect for those views.

It is often very difficult to take ones own emotions out of the picture when disagreeing with someone over deeply held beliefs, but it is worth the effort.

I'm truly sorry if I come across in anyway as disrespectul; that was not my intent in this subject. I am merely searching for truth.
I'm sorry, but I did not call their beliefs pathetic at all! I said their excuses were pathetic; I would never call someone's belief system pathetic.
And no, I did not say that all Baptists cram their beliefs down your throat. I have some very good friends who are Baptist. Perhaps a bit of clarification is owed here-my school will not allow me to graduate unless I take tests and learn their beliefs, so that, to me, is the definition of "cramming down the throat."

[Ken Pell]

Lindsey,

There are other places in the KJV where you will find verses that are not found in more recent translations.

Look at the Model Prayer of Jesus for another example, Matthew 6:13 specifically. (v. 13 is a footnote in the NIV I think).

Mark 11:26 is another (also there is a footnote ... the NIV is very good about referencing these changes -- you can find portion of verses omitted or different as well as entire verses too).

There are others who can give you more insight but here is a primary reason. Bibles like the NIV used teams of scholars that used manuscript copies not yet available to the KJV translators. These manuscripts are older and probably more reliable.

What the KJV probably used were some manuscripts that had "glosses" in them. Do you ever write notes in your Bible about things your read? That's a gloss. Sometimes these glosses (notes) get misunderstood as scripture in the KJV. There may be other explanations but that is one. Also, I would not let this trouble you very much ... none of these glosses did any injustice or injury to the text.

As I said, there are more intelligent people here who can fill in other details or even may inform us both that I am wrong about how this happens ... were all learning and discovering.

I hope this helped.


Also, always remember -- confusion is good! :) It means you have an opportunity to grow. Never be afraid to ask questions. :)

Ken

[Charles W Christian]

Tami -
I see your (corrective) point. However, Bible Baptists (a branch that calls themselves separatists/fundamentalist Baptists), who are usually "King James only" folks, along with many who are KJV only DO have quite a reputation of "cramming down the throats" of others their beliefs. They, too, need the Scriptures you recommended about loving brothers and sisters in Christ. Instead, they nit-pick about versions to the point where they call any other translation Satanic[I]! I'm sure you don't mean [I]that kind of "Christlike love" do you, Tami????

I think you were too harsh and jumped to some conclusions.

If you were more familiar with the particular group, you would have not experienced the kind of Christlike love you ask of Lindsey.

Also, it is not unloving (necessarily) to describe someone who "crams things down peoples' throat" as ...well...cramming things down peoples' throat! It is furthermore not unloving to point out ignorance, and the approach of KJV only folks is often filled with an unkind ignorance that completely ignores key elements of how the Bible is translated and about the history of English translations of the Bible to begin with.....

OK, now don't accuse me of being unloving....Just pointing out something you may have missed in your diatribe and your slightly condescending remarks about her age....

Charles

[Randy Wise]

I post from time to time on a baptist board. I overlooked the rule that KJV only with regard to scriptures being posted. It was brought up by some when discussing/debating such issues like women in ministry and pretrib rapture that I wasn't using a real bible as I posted with the NIV. I didn't start the debate with those issues but I joined in the discussion. So I started posting with both the KJV and the NIV side by side. They state the same thing. A disputed verse here and there makes no difference in the lengthy testimony given about Jesus. I don't like the KJV because of the outdated terms used. I never told anyone what translation to use, but I was told what translation I had to use, which I pointed out to the board leaders who felt they were tired of defending the KJV bible.
Randy

[Ryan Scott]

It's been pointed out to me that you are pretty young, so I'll keep that in mind as I'm responding here.

The language you used is inflammatory. It indicates a lack of respect for people who don't have your point of view. It does NOT indicate love and respect.

Baptists don't "cram their beliefs down people's throats" any more than Nazarenes do at Nazarene colleges and universities.


I have to disagree with you here. She specifically referenced her teachers, who happened to be Baptist, and gave her impressions of their actions. Whether those are right or wrong, it is her perception. She wasn't stereotypical or inflammatory. She was quite specific.

[Dennis Bratcher]

It's been pointed out to me that you are pretty young, so I'll keep that in mind as I'm responding here.

The language you used is inflammatory. It indicates a lack of respect for people who don't have your point of view. It does NOT indicate love and respect.

Baptists don't "cram their beliefs down people's throats" any more than Nazarenes do at Nazarene colleges and universities.

Calling their rationalization for their particular beliefs "pathetic" does not indicate respect for those views.

It is often very difficult to take ones own emotions out of the picture when disagreeing with someone over deeply held beliefs, but it is worth the effort.

I think the general point is valid. We should always be respectful of other people, certainly those with whom we disagree. But we can respect people at the same time that we point out that they are mistaken in what they believe.

I'm not all that young and have had a lot of experience with fundamentalist Southern Baptists (my nephew pastors a very large SBC church in California), as well as Nazarene fundamentalists. Every KJV-only SB and Nazarene that I have ever encountered is a fundamentalist. As a sociological descriptor, a fundamentalist is one who thinks their beliefs are the only ones that can possibly be true, assumes that anyone who does not agree with them is 100% wrong (and often for Christians that means apostate*), and is generally militant and aggressive with those beliefs, especially in educational contexts (*for a quick example, note the phrase “unbelieving German…editors” in this short synopsis: http://www.chick.com/reading/books/284/0284_11.asp; the “evidence” used here is blatantly false).

While the language may not have been as temperate as some might want, the description is pretty much on target. And I have seen far more intemperate language aimed at scholars and educators in the church on this forum than this, and from some people who are even more “not young” than I. So I don’t really think age is a determining factor.

As far as the use of evidence, KJV-only promoters tend to be highly selective of evidence and ignore what does not fit their beliefs. That leaves the logic of the belief inconsistent and contradictory. It is not a matter of choosing between two equally compelling and evidenced positions; it is a matter of adopting a belief system and then fitting in evidence to support it.

All beliefs are not equal (very anti-postmodern, I know). While we should certainly respect the people who hold those beliefs, we can still point out that the belief itself is not well founded, not well reasoned, not supported by evidence, and therefore lacks credibility.

Of course, all of that is from one who is often accused of not being respectful enough of other positions because I think some beliefs are ill-founded and illogical (some people have trouble distinguishing disagreement with their beliefs from rejection of them as a person). So take all this FWIW.

Grace and peace,

Dennis B.

[Gina Stevenson]

OK, knowing we all read through varying (types of) filters, I guess it struck me when reading that some tho't Tami was being disrespectful of Lindsey b/c of her age. 'Guess what I tho't was that, in her 2nd note (after being informed following the first one), she was suggesting that she'd take into consideration her age, and go easier/be more lenient, rather than jumping on her more as tho' she were a several-decades-old "seasoned/should-know-better" adult.

Somehow read it as an, "Oops, guess I'd better take it easy and be more gracious than I was in the first note, since she's younger than a lot of us on here," rather than a condescending, "Oh, you're just a kid!" type of statement. Perhaps those viewing it as other than how I read it let it be colored by those posts in another thread where we did discuss just recently how some adults have definitely been disrespectful of/condescending to young folks simply because they were young??? [Yes, I've experienced that, too, when younger, so I'm no at all saying such things do not happen.]

[Marg Webb]

I have to disagree with you here. She specifically referenced her teachers, who happened to be Baptist, and gave her impressions of their actions. Whether those are right or wrong, it is her perception. She wasn't stereotypical or inflammatory. She was quite specific.


Thank you Scott and others that came to the rescue of this young lady. I was so pleased to see a younger person respecting you all enough that she would ask for this explanation from any of those that are on NN.

I wish for you a happy time with your friends in the Baptist school.
I want you to know my dear we loved that you asked all of us for an opinion on this common question from most of us that have Baptist friends.

[Billy Cox]

Does the translation you DO use not include language about loving our brothers and sisters in Christ?

Tami, Since others have laid the smack-down on you, I won't pile on...but I will take the opportunity to add +1 to my post-counter. Yay!! :basic05

[Lindsey Grant]

Thanks so much for your answers, everyone! We talked about it at youth group tonight as well, and the general consensus seems to agree on the subject. I really appreciate it!

[Michael Gentry]

Lindsey: It depends on which Greek Text you choose to follow ... (1) The "Majority Text" or also known as the "Eastern Byzintine" text is followed by the KJV & NKJV translators (2) the "Western Alexandrian" text is used by virtually all the other modern translations. The reason the KJV has those verses is because those verses appear in the "Majority Text" Greek Manuscripts, the other do not have them because they do not appear in the "Western Alexandrian texts."

This is a simple answer.

Two other things ...
(1) One must make up their own mind as to which they want to follow.
--- There are over 5,000 mostly partial text copies of the "Majority Text."
--- (KJV & NKJV). And only 7 complete texts of the "Alexandrian Texts." (NIV & Others)

(2) There is a debate over which to choose due to date of the fragments, etc. My contention is that you can get truth out of all translations and can grow spiritually as a Christian with any of them.

Michael Gentry

[Garth Lahana]

Lindsey, you might find this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_text-type) interesting to read. It's an article on Wikipedia on the Majority Texts, which is also known as the Byzantine text-type. It makes a very interesting read.

[Dennis Bratcher]

Lindsey: It depends on which Greek Text you choose to follow ... (1) The "Majority Text" or also known as the "Eastern Byzintine" text is followed by the KJV & NKJV translators (2) the "Western Alexandrian" text is used by virtually all the other modern translations. The reason the KJV has those verses is because those verses appear in the "Majority Text" Greek Manuscripts, the other do not have them because they do not appear in the "Western Alexandrian texts."

This is a simple answer.

Two other things ...
(1) One must make up their own mind as to which they want to follow.
--- There are over 5,000 mostly partial text copies of the "Majority Text."
--- (KJV & NKJV). And only 7 complete texts of the "Alexandrian Texts." (NIV & Others)

(2) There is a debate over which to choose due to date of the fragments, etc. My contention is that you can get truth out of all translations and can grow spiritually as a Christian with any of them.

Michael Gentry

Thanks for the “simple answer.”

A couple of further comments. Textual Critics do not give much credibility to how many manuscripts exist for a particular reading in determining the best text or more original reading. The number of manuscripts is influenced by a variety of factors, including geographical location. Instead, they use what they call "text families" (or “text types”) following the analogy of a family tree with a few main trunks. One trunk of the tree may have a lot of offshoot branches while another has few. However, textual critics look at the main trucks (or text families) rather than the branches since it is presumed that the main families are earlier, and therefore more reliable, than later offshoots that all depend on the main trunk anyway.

In the case of the KJV (and some other “majority text” translations), since the handful of manuscripts used were not complete some of the translations were back translated from Latin into Greek and then forward into the receptor language. As a result, the KJV is riddled with inaccurate or misleading translations.

While I would agree with No. 2 generally (“truth” and spiritual growth from Scripture are more functions of the Holy Spirit enabling understanding than just the words of the text), all translations are not equal. As I have noted before, some translations are far more heavily biased in certain directions than are others. That means that if we depend too heavily on only one translation, we may end up with skewed perspectives in some areas that are slanted by the biases and agenda of the translators.

That places more responsibility on readers either in choosing translations or in being willing to consider that single words or even verses are not the whole truth of a doctrine or belief (which makes the “proof text” approach to doctrine, as evidenced in the Manual for example, problematic).

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Wayne Paul]

I am not trying to answer any questions; however, I think knowing the history of the English Bible (http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/) has value.

[Dale Cozby]

Lindsey, let me give you the really simple answer translating Mike and Dennis into really simple.:p

Mike: Two version of texts, an east and west version, both have support but seems like the east has more...hence KJV

Dennis: All the major translations are one big happy family...so pick the ones that you like the best and hang out with them.

I personally hang out with the:

NIV: "Nazarene International Version" ;) need I say more?

NASB: "No American Speaks this Babble" version. Everyone says it is the best overall translation....but it doesn't read as well as the Nazarene version and you will get strange and confused looks if you preach from it.

KJV: Gotta love the poetry of it. Besides when you quote it in that old english it sounds more authoritative somehow.:preach Great for proof texting!

Oh there are some other versions....but hey if you can't make sense of it after three versions.....the Holy Spirit doesn't want you to know it yet.:gen05

[Michael Gentry]

Thanks to both Dennis & Dale

I agree with both.

I like what Dennis Bratcher said ...
"As I have noted before, some translations are far more heavily biased in certain directions than are others. That means that if we depend too heavily on only one translation, we may end up with skewed perspectives in some areas that are slanted by the biases and agenda of the translators."

Thus there is no perfect translation. It seems I have just about every translation in print, working in a book store gave me the opportunity to collect them at a greatly reduced price, plus there are many free ones to access on the internet since the copyrights are no longer in effect.

The Bibles which I regularly use in study are:
New King James Version (NKJV)
New International Version (NIV)
English Standard Version (ESV)
New English Translation (NET) - which was the first Bible to appear on the Internet before being published in book form.
New Living Translation (NLT)

These five tend to give a good comparison / variation in text.

I use my scripture on the projection system we have now for worship and vary in use of the NKJV and the NIV. Use of the NIV, of course, is because more people carry this one than any other in my church.

Dr. Michael R. Gentry

[Michael Gentry]

Most KJV Onlys do not even own a true 1611 KJV.
There are at least 7 revisions of the 1611 KJV. (If it was a perfect translation then why the revisions?)
There are subtle differences even among the so-called Authorized Versions (KJV) being used by KJV Onlys
In the original 1611, in the preface, the translators did not profess to have a 'perfect' translation. Why do KJVO insist on something that the original translators did not believe?
Original KJV ADDED the Apocrypha which most consider to not be inspired (including the KJVO crowd). The '1611 KJV' adds several books that are not accepted as canonical.

I have a very useful Power Point presentation on this subject I would be willing to share with you that clears up a lot of confusion. I did not originate it but found it very helpful to me.


That's true, there have been several revisions of the KJV ... while working 7 years at a Christian bookstore, I found differences in two KJV's that are on the market today.

Also, Dennis Bratcher can correct me on this if I am wrong ... but I believe the Apocrypha was included in most translations at that time. It has been a fairly "new" thing that the Apocrypha be eliminated (I mean new in the since of only a couple hundred years).

I have included the Apocrypha in my Bible reading schedule the last 25 years (I found a through the year schedule with the Apocrypha included). One of my disciplines has been to read the Bible through in a different translation every year since 1974 when I began pastoring full time. I felt I needed a good "overall" picture of Scripture.

I know it's not considered "canonical" but neither is Chuck Swindoll, Richard Taylor, William Greathouse, etc. or Max Lucado ... but we read them :)

[Gina Stevenson]

Lindsey, let me give you the really simple answer translating Mike and Dennis into really simple.:p
......................

KJV: Gotta love the poetry of it. Besides when you quote it in that old english it sounds more authoritative somehow.:preach Great for proof texting!
:gen05

Oohhh! Now we know who likes to do proof-texting, Dale! :laughing
[just couldn't resist, OK!? :rolleyes:]

Also, Dennis Bratcher can correct me on this if I am wrong ... but I believe the Apocrypha was included in most translations at that time. It has been a fairly "new" thing that the Apocrypha be eliminated (I mean new in the since of only a couple hundred years).

I have included the Apocrypha in my Bible reading schedule the last 25 years (I found a through the year schedule with the Apocrypha included). One of my disciplines has been to read the Bible through in a different translation every year since 1974 when I began pastoring full time. I felt I needed a good "overall" picture of Scripture.

I know it's not considered "canonical" but neither is Chuck Swindoll, Richard Taylor, William Greathouse, etc. or Max Lucado ... but we read them :)

Michael, the reason I just had to click "funny" not just "thanks" ... you mean these guys aren't considered canonical!? Oh, man! I didn't know that! :basic05

[Billy Cox]

The Bibles which I regularly use in study are:
New King James Version (NKJV)
New International Version (NIV)
English Standard Version (ESV)
New English Translation (NET) - which was the first Bible to appear on the Internet before being published in book form.
New Living Translation (NLT)

These five tend to give a good comparison / variation in text.



What about the JKV? (John Kerry Version) :basic05

[Gina Stevenson]

What about the JKV? (John Kerry Version) :basic05

Did I miss something in '04, or did this post appear only b/c the initials reminded you of him?

[Michael Gentry]

What about the JKV? (John Kerry Version) :basic05

hehehe ... Actually I have a KJV that I use extensively due to the center column reference which is one of the best on the market. It was printed by World Bible Publisher until about 3 years ago when they were bought out by Thomas Nelson. It is called a "Heritage Bible." One of the few Bibles has not changed since it began being printed in the 1950's.

There were 7 different sizes of that Bible printed (I have four of them) and if your grandmother had one she bought in 1950 and you had one you bought in 2008, any size mind you ... you say, "turn to page 501" and the text would be the same!

Again, the center column reference in that Bible is one of the best.

[Ken Pell]

What about the JKV? (John Kerry Version) :basic05

:basic05

Whenever I use a portion of Scripture that I have translated in a sermon (only three or four times a year) the congregation calls it the KJPV. My middle name is James. :)

[Dennis Bratcher]

I am not suggesting that the Apocrypha should not be read and is not useful in anyway. I was just making the point that KJVO people seem to be offended at some versions leaving things out but the 1611 KJV added books of the Bible that they do not accept as canonical.

Just a minor point. It is not quite accurate to say that the KJV “added” the Apocrypha. By the time of the Reformation the Apocrypha was recognized in Church tradition as a “Second Canon” (deutro-canonical). Technically, that meant that it could be used for devotional reading but not for developing doctrine. These books were included in the early Greek and Latin versions, and all of the early English translations before the KJV included them (Coverdale 1535; Matthews 1537; English version of the Geneva Bible 1560; Bishops Bible 1568).

When the KJV was published in 1611 it included 80 books, with the Apocrypha. Aitkens’ version (1782) was the first English translation to eliminate the Apocrypha. The Apocrypha was not removed from the KJV until 1885.

So actually, the KJV dropped the Apocrypha, as did most subsequent non-Catholic English versions before the RSV (which came with and without). But your point is valid. To be logically consistent, KJVO people either have to accept the Apocrypha as at least Deutrocanonical, or have to come up with a good logical reason to hold to KJVO, but only the post-1885 versions.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[John Kennedy]

Your point is well taken, although I'm not at all sure that 'logically consistent' and 'KJVO' are terms that can be used within a half-mile of eath other, let alone in the same sentence.

[Gina Stevenson]

Having found the apocrypha somewhere on-line, & read a bit quite awhile ago [last year?], and hearing more re its past sanctioning as "devotional" reading, think I might look for it again & read some more. What I did read was rather interesting, to say the least ... seemed to add some historical aspects to a well known story, giving some details not found in the canonical books.

[Wayne Paul]

Having found the apocrypha somewhere on-line, & read a bit quite awhile ago [last year?], and hearing more re its past sanctioning as "devotional" reading, think I might look for it again & read some more. What I did read was rather interesting, to say the least ... seemed to add some historical aspects to a well known story, giving some details not found in the canonical books.

Gina,

Here is the link from the Wesley Center non-cannon texts (http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studies/noncanon/index.htm).

[Dennis Bratcher]

Your point is well taken, although I'm not at all sure that 'logically consistent' and 'KJVO' are terms that can be used within a half-mile of eath other, let alone in the same sentence.

I almost added that. But I'm trying to be nicer!:cool:

DB

[Gina Stevenson]

Gina,

Here is the link from the Wesley Center non-cannon texts (http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studies/noncanon/index.htm).

Thank you very much, Wayne; we'll bookmark it. ;)